Quote:Regardless, a peson can still eat beef or meat and be "religious" contrary to what you claimed.

One cannot be "religious" according to Vedic culture and still eat beef. This is an unfounded speculation colored by sentimentalism of some people who have friends who eat beef. Because they see their friends eating beef and being "religious," they therefore think that beef-eating and spiritual life are compatible. Anyone can perform ritual, but actual spiritual life is not compatible with eating beef. One should see things as they are, through the eyes of shaastra. One shouldn't be sentimental and claim that beef-eating is okay simply because his friends eat beef.

And yes, you can give up meat and eggs the moment you actually want to. Until you do so, you are a Hypocrite for even bothering to lecture anyone on Sanaatana-dharma, since your decision to eat meat is against the standards of even basic dharma.

If you can't control your senses enough to avoid causing violence to innocent creatures, then you have no business speaking on the subject of spirituality.

Quote:One cannot be "religious" according to Vedic culture and still eat beef.

I don't remember what context this is in, but let me clarify my statements. In Vedic culture, beef eating was certainly not allowed an in those times a person who ate the cow was obviously not religious because he blatantly went against the religious and cultural traditions. That was in those times. Let's look at today's times.

Eating of beef is cruel and sinful in any time. That many people do it does not excuse them from the karmic consequences of the sin.

It is indeed the height of moral relativism and crass stupidity to suggest that a sinful act is no longer sinful simply because so many people do it despite thinking that they are "religious."

Quote:One cannot be "religious" according to Vedic culture and still eat beef.

I don't remember what context this is in, but let me clarify my statements. In Vedic culture, beef eating was certainly not allowed an in those times a person who ate the cow was obviously not religious because he blatantly went against the religious and cultural traditions. That was in those times. Let's look at today's times.

Eating of beef is cruel and sinful in any time. That many people do it does not excuse them from the karmic consequences of the sin.

It is indeed the height of moral relativism and crass stupidity to suggest that a sinful act is no longer sinful simply because so many people do it despite thinking that they are "religious."

There is no point in my substantiating the above remarks with shaastra, because although so many vocal "Hindus" of this forum claim to accept shaastra, they do so in name only.

He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who killsit, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he whoserves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers(of the animal) (manu smR^iti 5.51).

Notice, how the above statements do not make exceptions, i.e. "For this time only," or "for these people only," etc etc. The meaning is obvious. Killing of animals is sinful, period. The only exception made by Manu is for properly performed Yagnas, which no one is qualified to perform today anyway.

This straightforward proof will no doubt be followed by a "rebuttal" to the effect that Manu is not acceptable (even though traditional scholars do accept it) for this reason or that. Usually whatever trumped up reason is put forward will no doubt be the product of the fertile imagination of someone who has no idea what he is talking about and could not substantiate his position if his life depended on it.

Quote:When did I ever say that it was not sinful or himsic or evil to kill or slaughter an animal?

You said it in paragraph #2 of your posting #41338 dated 03/16/04 06:02 PM on this very thread:

Shaivite uvaacha:

"A Christian or Muslim can indeed be very spiritual, religious, and close to God and eat beef."

Killing of animals, especially cows, is sinful for everyone. It does not matter what religion they belong to, or whether they refuse to believe it is sinful, or even if their religion actively teaches them there is no sin involved. It is as simple as saying that if you touch a fire with your naked hand, you will be burned. Not believing it will not change the fact.

Saying that one can commit sins and still be close to God is an absurdity of epic proportions. It's like saying "I can tell who is and who is not interpreting Bhagavad-giitaa even though I don't know Sanskrit."

KS: I agree w what you wrote here. But also agree w what Shaivaite wrote too!

BEEF is a dead material devoid of ATMAN within. All food items that we eat are also dead matter only. Only matter can feed a matter..meaning our physical bodies are mere material stuff only.

If food is for your material physical body, then religion is just for your intellect only.

using your intellect w right information or right knowldege, you select what is compatible to your metabolism only.

Plese remember not all plants are healthy for consumption either. There are people who are severely allergic to certain plant food items as well as to animal food items.

BUT IN GENERAL, the principle of AHIMSA applies only to killing of man only. It does not apply to killing animals for food, though animals also have ATMAN within.

In vedic times, it is said in MB (BY C. Rajagopalachary) that RAKSHAS disguised cannibalism and offered dead human meat for RISHIS to eat.

ON page 111 in paragraph 2, CR wrote this:""Ilvala would, w effective hospitaltiy, invite a BRAHMANA to a feast. By the power of his magic he would transform his bother VATAPI into a goat and he would kill this "pseudo-goat for food and sever its meat to the guest. IN THOSE DAYS, THE BRAHMANAS USED TO EAT MEAT".

tHIS IS FROM THE BOOK ON"MAHABHARATA" BY C. RAJAGOPALACHARI, BHARATIYA VIDYA BHAVAN, BOMBAY-7, INDIA.

THe reason that they did not want to eat COWs is that cows were the only source of milk for babies once the child gets weaned from breast milk of mothers. also cows are pet of LORD KRSNA. you don't want to eat your neighbor's pet. Do you?

animals are intelligent and they are high functioining when compared to plant kingdom. ALSO that BRAHMA was on an umblical region and came to existence w KNOWLEDGEful SARASVATI goddess that it is not advisable to eat any mammals at all. Anything that is born w an umbilical cord is not a food item for human beings, as BRAHMA was said to be born w umbilical cord first as first PRAJAPATHI.

Sure, hindus do eat chickens, as chickens are not mammals.Also if you look at MATSYA avatar, there you have hals fish and half mammalian Deity. Why? The whales, dolphins and sharks are mammals. Hindus were researching and studying the evolution of species from fish or pisces to mammals.

Mammals are close to human beings, as Human being is a social mammal only. So you can't eat another mammal. It is just as simple as that. The animals when dead provide a lot of opportunities for research to find cures for many illnesses that human beings undergo in life cycles.

BUT once you kill them all, then you are left w nothing to find cure from or study the effect of all meds or vaccines, etc.

Endogenous viral load is heavy in mammals as they have a large number of cells in their body to harbor them. So people using scientific info and knowledge must select items that cause less pain to living entities (plant experiences of pain ar least felt, as they don't cry or make any noises that we can hear, but cows and animals let out a cry before they sacrifice their bodies for our food).

In the end, do you feel good about eating cows, when you know how they cry or feel pain or agonize before they die?animal lovers and SPCA does not think so. It is all about compassion and caring about JIVA loaded w ATMAN only.

Jiva=living biological celled body.ATMAN=SOULSPARK.

JIVATMAN=a living body animated by SOULSPARK.

JADA=dead cell.JADA had no ATMAN within.

dead meat has no ATMAN within. BUT do you have a right to get ATMAN out of a living entity? nope.

in my opinion the problem is in the use of "spiritual progress" phrase

of course a vegetarian who kills humans makes no advancement and a meat eater who sincerely prays god is making advancement

the real meaning of "who eats meat does not make any advancement" is that it is not possible to reach a real satvik condition if we eat meat

and if we are not in satva guna , it is not even possible to think to reach transcendence

so there's a problem of proportion... it is possible that when we are very close to materialism, that someone who is not following any proper lifestyle, maybe for good karma from previous lifes, is relatively advanced

but there's no possibility to reach highest levels of realization if we make this great karma of eating meat

let us not also forget that, to not take any karma, the only system is to offer what we are ready eat to krsna and receive prasadam... and we know that krnsa does not accept any sinful food